luvluv

Vorkosagian:

Vork you are obviously an intelligent person, so I obviously do not have to point out to you that the origin of OUR BELIEF in other worlds has absolutely no bearing on whether other worlds actually exist.

This seems like a psuedo-Freudian attempt to explain the existence of other worlds away as a complex. But this is a category mistake. We may believe, as Freud says, because of a complex, but that says nothing about whether God actually exists. We may, as you say, only believe about other worlds because of evolutionary machinery (which I suppose you lack? a mutation perhaps?) but that fails to address the question of whether or not other worlds ACTUALLY EXIST. I mean, I may only believe my girfriend loves me because I have a complex, but this does not rule out the possibility that she may actually love me.

Science simply cannot address the possibility of the existence of other worlds, and if one could it certainly would not be cognitive science, which could only address the issue of why we believe there are other worlds.

That's a totally false conclusion, my friend. Totally. Everyone in the world could believe in God because solely out of wishful thinking, and God could still exist. Why we believe in the existence of a thing has no logical implications on the actual existence of what we believe in. So science absolutely cannot say, (and most good scientists, like Hawking, to their credit admit this) that there definitely is not a reality beyond this one. You can't hide behind science to resolve a question like this. You have to make a leap of faith in one direction or the other.

There is some truth to this, and for the emotional nature of my reaction I apologize, but I actually remember this being part of our first discussion here. I frankly do not think you know about Lewis to judge him. That's not a character attack, that's a plainly empirical hypothesis based on how much of his writings you have apparently read. Therefore, since I know your opinion is respected around here, I get upset when you discourage people from reading his writings based on your reactions to 3 or 4 of his books. Did you ever read the Problem of Pain, the World's Last Night, Reflections on the Psalms or the Weight of Glory? Because these, and not Mere Christianity, are considered to be his best works. And as far as not believing what he wrote, or trying to convince himself that Christianity was true, have you ever read A Grief Observed? Or any of his biographies or accounts of his life written by people who knew him? I have, and this is how I know that most of your opinion on him is frankly uninformed and incorrect. That would be true whatever your character traits are. And when someone of your board status makes these statements to people they take it as gospel and refuse to read it. THAT is what pisses me off, not your opinion of Lewis, but that you are so willing to spread it without being fully informed yourself.

I don't know what you mean here. I think you are reading your own scientific knowledge of the brain into Lewis's writings here, in a manner that he did not intend. Of course, if you are thinking about eternal issues, then eternal issues are part of your immediate sense experiences. But he was actually discussing two "subjects" of thought. Either temporal thoughts ("what am I going to have for lunch?" "Did that woman just look at me?" "I really want to buy that suit") or eternal thoughts ("Does God exist?" "Does He really love me?"). Certainly, if there are demons, they would rather us be thinking the former thoughts than the latter. In fact, such demons would probably rather you be an uniformed, totally hedonistic atheist (they exist) than the kind of atheist you are now. They would rather you simply ate, drank, and were merry and never gave a thought, positive or negative, to the question of God's existence. Remember, in that passage Screwtape was talking about persuading an ATHEIST not to give serious thought to the question of God's existence. But all that aside, I see no reason to think that the promotion of thinking about more eternal questions is inhuman. I think people should do a lot more thinking about whether or not God exists and what the nature of truth is rather than how long Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez's marriage is going to last and who won American Idol. Hey, call me inhuman.

Oh GOOD GRIEF! The person Lewis is describing in this passage is not an atheist BUT A RECENT CONVERTANT TO CHRISTIANITY! He is saying that this CHRISTIAN is likely to think HIS OWN RELIGION ridiculous on the grounds of the people around him, not because he is an atheist but because the society he grew up in has taught him to value the veracity of an opinon by the physical appearance of the people who hold them!

This is what bothers me Vork. How can you tell someone whether they should or should not read Screwtape when you haven't even entirely understood what you have read!! I would not even attempt to dispute that you know more about 95% of all possible subject matters than I do, but C.S. Lewis is not one of them. If someone asks you about him, it is certainly your right to give them your opinion but in the intersts of honesty you should add the fact that you haven't read a whole lot of his writings.

The Admiral

I have a copy of Mere Christianity. I have had it for years. Some Christian gave it to me thinking that if I would read it I would be instantly converted. I dislike having a book around that I have not read. It shames me every time it catches my eye on my bookshelves. But, I have started reading that dam thing a dozen times and can't get through it or even very far into it. I think it is the most boring thing I have ever tried to read. And this from a man who has just finished reading J.P. Morelands "Scaling The Secular City" for the second time.

The Admiral

The Admiral

I am very skeptical of people like C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel and my furnace man who say that they were once Atheists. I think that they are just bragging.

The Admiral

luvluv

I would also like to echo Helen's point about the notion of the false trilema. It is important to realize that if one takes Jesus's statements as recorded in the Bible to be what he really said, then the there is no false trilema (is that redundant?).

Therefore, if C.S. Lewis says "The Bible says Jesus said these things, therefore Jesus must be a liar, a lunatic, or lord" then that would be a false trilema.

But, if C.S. framed the argument "Jesus said these things, therefore he has to be either a liar, a lunatic, or lord" then no false trilema is involved.

If his Jesus' words are taken as a given there is no logical fallacy.

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Vork you are obviously an intelligent person, so I obviously do not have to point out to you that the origin of OUR BELIEF in other worlds has absolutely no bearing on whether other worlds actually exist.

Luv, here's how it works. Science attacks this problem in a multitude of ways. You are correct, that the origin of the belief by itself is not evidence that the belief is incorrect. However, that datum does not exist in isolation.

Basically, scientific research attacks this problem from several angles. First, it shows that concepts of "reality beyond ours" are incoherent and contradictory. Second, it shows that there is no evidence for them and they violate known laws. Third, it shows why humans might hold such a belief irrespective of evidence. Data are only judged in conjunction with other data. Taken together, the data indicates that the belief is not related to anything that lies outside of humans, or outside of this universe, but is instead an internal state.

Consider the case of a man who has a delusion he is Napoleon. We know that his delusion is inconsistent with historical evidence, that his delusion abates with psychological drugs, and that his delusion violates known natural laws. Now it is true that he might well be Napoleon. But on the face of it, psychology accounts very nicely for his behavior. The weight of evidence is against the hypothesis that he is Napoleon.

Similarly, people operate under the belief or feeling that "there's something out there." The preponderance of evidence indicates that this belief is erroneous and a function of internal cognitive states.

Science simply cannot address the possibility of the existence of other worlds, and if one could it certainly would not be cognitive science, which could only address the issue of why we believe there are other worlds.

This is a nice dodge. Science cannot address the question of the massless invisible rhino orbiting Jupiter. However, that doesn't give us any reason to believe in one. Science can address why people might hold such beliefs, which may be explanation enough.

I mean, I may only believe my girfriend loves me because I have a complex, but this does not rule out the possibility that she may actually love me.

Yes, but once we know your belief is entirely the result of internal states, we no longer have any reason to think that she loves you. Evidence independent of your own mind is required.

Similarly, we cannot hold that our beliefs in the Great Beyond are evidence for anything. Some other evidence is required.

That's a totally false conclusion, my friend. Totally. Everyone in the world could believe in God because solely out of wishful thinking, and God could still exist.

But for the little matter of evidence, you would be correct....

Why we believe in the existence of a thing has no logical implications on the actual existence of what we believe in.

Nonsense. Our beliefs are evidence, of a sort. They cease to be evidence when they can be shown to be fantasies, illusions, or other constructions of our own mind. If I ask you where your father is, and you tell me that to the best of your knowledge he is in Minneapolis based on your last discussion with him yesterday, I accept that there is a high probability he is there. If later I find out your father passed away many years ago, your belief no longer qualifies as evidence.

So science absolutely cannot say, (and most good scientists, like Hawking, to their credit admit this) that there definitely is not a reality beyond this one. You can't hide behind science to resolve a question like this. You have to make a leap of faith in one direction or the other.

Ummm...no. You can go right on believing that there is a reality beyond this one, or that you are Napoleon, or that your psychic powers enable the world to exist. But there's the little matter of evidence and argument. Until you present credible evidence or argument in favor of a reality beyond this one, then you are simply making idle claims -- or rather, claims that would be idle, if they didn't get so many people killed.

No leap of faith required. We can think of things that science can't address until the cows come home, but that does not give us any reason to believe in them. The only "leaps" are made by religious types, who believe in spite of all evidence and argument. I can't make a "leap" Luv, there's no place for me to "leap" to. I simply await credible evidence for "the Great Beyond."

There is some truth to this, and for the emotional nature of my reaction I apologize, but I actually remember this being part of our first discussion here. I frankly do not think you know about Lewis to judge him. That's not a character attack, that's a plainly empirical hypothesis based on how much of his writings you have apparently read.

You wondered about Screwtape. I responded.

Therefore, since I know your opinion is respected around here, I get upset when you discourage people from reading his writings based on your reactions to 3 or 4 of his books. Did you ever read the Problem of Pain, the World's Last Night, Reflections on the Psalms or the Weight of Glory? Because these, and not Mere Christianity, are considered to be his best works.

In response to our last discussion, and during it, I read both Problem and Mere. Neither is a very impressive work. Both are exactly as I say, sympathetically written, pompous, and badly-argued, full of philosophical errors so simple and so blatant that Lewis is either stupid, engaged in complex double-think, or deliberately lying. A trilemma of a sort, you know. Except I don't think Lewis is stupid.

And as far as not believing what he wrote, or trying to convince himself that Christianity was true, have you ever read A Grief Observed? Or any of his biographies or accounts of his life written by people who knew him? I have, and this is how I know that most of your opinion on him is frankly uninformed and incorrect.

I'll tell you what. I'll track down a copy, and read it. And we can discuss it here.

THAT is what pisses me off, not your opinion of Lewis, but that you are so willing to spread it without being fully informed yourself.

It's a public discussion forum. Nobody gives a shit about my opinion here. And frankly, few here have much respect for Lewis in any case. I doubt many here would waste time on him no matter what I said.

Oh GOOD GRIEF! The person Lewis is describing in this passage is not an atheist BUT A RECENT CONVERTANT TO CHRISTIANITY! He is saying that this CHRISTIAN is likely to think HIS OWN RELIGION ridiculous on the grounds of the people around him, not because he is an atheist but because the society he grew up in has taught him to value the veracity of an opinon by the physical appearance of the people who hold them!

The demons are discussing how to get the man out of his conversion. Perhaps you did not read the passage carefully.

This is what bothers me Vork. How can you tell someone whether they should or should not read Screwtape when you haven't even entirely understood what you have read!!

Perhaps one of us hasn't read the book. But it ain't me.

The demons are discussing tactics. "How can we make this man leave his religion?" The method they propose is class snobbery. Do you know anyone who have given up his religion because of class snobbery? People switch churches, not religions, on those grounds.

The fundamental problem is that choosing atheism is an inherently rational act, while choosing religion is an inherently irrational one -- the crux of the problem is the basic irrationality of religious faith. There is no way around that dilemma.

This creates a serious problem for Lewis.

The fact is that for Lewis to portray serious tactics on the parts of demons would require him to make plain some of the fundamental problems with religious thinking, and with Christianity, and of course, to grapple with them himself. For example, if I had been the Senior demon, I might have pointed out how the priest is a male -- what is the status of women in Christianity? I would have pointed out facts about Christian history, science, philosophy, its links to colonialism and racism, and so on. These are the things that make people give up religion, like one of my heroes, Elizur Wright, the 19th century reformer, who gave up religion because he was an abolitionist.

But if Lewis did that, he would have to honestly confront the basic flaws in his thinking. He apparently did that in A Grief Observed, which he published under a psuedonym because he didn't want the public to know that the world's leading Christian apologist had become a raging atheist for a period, again. But he managed to convince re-configure his system of double-think and overcome his cognitive dissonance.

The thing is, Luv, is that you and I do not even label the world in the same way. What you see as a moving struggle with grief and coming back to god (A Grief Observed), I see as a desperate attempt to overcome cognitive dissonance caused by realizing that the world is indifferent to the fate of human beings, instead of fundamentally loving, as Christianity claims. To you Lewis is working through personal pain. I see that, but the intellectual struggle you see as "understanding god" or "submitting to god's will" looks to me like he is re-inventing his god under the threat of massive cognitive dissonance.

I don't know what you mean here. I think you are reading your own scientific knowledge of the brain into Lewis's writings here, in a manner that he did not intend. Of course, if you are thinking about eternal issues, then eternal issues are part of your immediate sense experiences. But he was actually discussing two "subjects" of thought. Either temporal thoughts ("what am I going to have for lunch?" "Did that woman just look at me?" "I really want to buy that suit") or eternal thoughts ("Does God exist?" "Does He really love me?"). Certainly, if there are demons, they would rather us be thinking the former thoughts than the latter. In fact, such demons would probably rather you be an uniformed, totally hedonistic atheist (they exist) than the kind of atheist you are now. They would rather you simply ate, drank, and were merry and never gave a thought, positive or negative, to the question of God's existence. Remember, in that passage Screwtape was talking about persuading an ATHEIST not to give serious thought to the question of God's existence.

And the atheist ran off to lunch. But it was clear from other comments the atheist made that the atheist had thought about the matter. Indeed, Lewis is forced to present the atheist's understanding of science as shallow, and thereby dodge any discussion of modern science, except to hint that it leads to god ("there have been many sad cases among modern physicists). Not only would discussing science require Lewis to understand science -- something which he really does not, and which would cause massive cognitive dissonance -- but it would provide powerful resources for the demon. The result is that this whole passage in this letter is horribly contrived. Any halfway intelligent demon would immediately reach for science. The demon knows that the majority of scientists are atheists, especially the great ones.

But all that aside, I see no reason to think that the promotion of thinking about more eternal questions is inhuman.

I do. I look at results of religious thinking.

I think people should do a lot more thinking about whether or not God exists and what the nature of truth is rather than how long Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez's marriage is going to last and who won American Idol. Hey, call me inhuman.

So do I, but I don't believe that one type of question is inherently better than the other. I try not to confuse my own prejudices with ethical stances.

I would not even attempt to dispute that you know more about 95% of all possible subject matters than I do, but C.S. Lewis is not one of them.

On the books we've talked about so far -- Screwtape, Problem, Mere -- I have not been wrong.

If someone asks you about him, it is certainly your right to give them your opinion but in the intersts of honesty you should add the fact that you haven't read a whole lot of his writings.

Never claimed to have.

Vorkosigan

luvluv

Vorkosigan:

Really, how?

Uh-huh. And can science possibly know that:

1) If there were other worlds, we would have empirical evidence of them in this world.

2) That our known laws would apply in other worlds.

It does no such thing, and you know it. Science cannot answer this question, it can only influence people who are over-committed to the philosophy of atheism to be tempted to make bold, unjustified statements. It is possible for the psychologist to discover that a belief is a function of internal cognitive states, that doesn't mean that WHAT IS BELIEVED IN does not exist. You know, logically, that you cannot support this statement, and it is cognitive dissonance, in my opinion, that makes you continually assert it. All the scientific knowledge in the world could not address whether or not other worlds exist. It's a question that GOOD SCIENTISTS admit is BEYOND THE REALM OF SCIENCE.

Excuse me, I am not the one asserting that science can prove something. You are. No, science cannot address the question of the massless invisible rhino orbiting Jupiter, and I am not pretending it can. You, however, are pretending (cognitive dissonance, no doubt) that it can rule out the possibility of the existence of other worlds. It most certainly cannot.

Sure, but evidence independant of your own mind is required to show that other worlds don't exist. And you don't have any.

The bottom line is, you seemed to be asserting that other worlds don't exist because a person's belief in other worlds is a function of their cognitive states (and, again, I suppose your belief that other worlds don't exist is somehow not a result of your cognitive states, right?). Firstly, I seriously doubt that's actually been proven, but I welcome you to link me to any information to the contrary. Further, that, combined with all scientific knowledge up to this point, would be totally insufficient evidence to warrant your conclusion.

Great. Can you show me that my beliefs are fantasies, illusions, or constructions of my own mind? Or can you simply assert this?

False analogy. Yes, IF WE COULD GO TO OTHER WORLDS, we could see if they existed or not. But since we can't, that hardly clarifies whether science has ruled out their existence or not. If later science proves that there are no other worlds (again, I don't see how it could), then and only then could we conclude that science has proven other worlds cannot exist. My mental state is irrelavent, it is circumstantial evidence at best.

I never said they did! But you seem to say that science has invalidated the belief in them, and it certainly has not!

It is true that, in order for VORKOSIGAN to BELIEVE in something, evidence must be presented to VORKOSIGAN, but it is not true that in order for SOMETHING TO EXIST, evidence must be presented to Vorkosigan. The latter is what you have previously been seeming to imply. The fact that you don't have evidence for something does not even approach postive evidence of it's non-existance. You, personally, don't have evidence for the existence of the overwhelming majority of actual entities, yet, somehow, they manage to go right on existing.

And yet you've managed to avoid mentioning a single one.

And probably 15 people on this board have read more than one of his books, the rest of them are picking this attitude up from the rest of you. That's my point. The opinion on this forum of the work of C.S. Lewis is uninformed.

If I went mouting off about Bertrand Russell or some other major atheist thinker after barely finishing one of his books, you'd be all over me, and rightly so.

Vork, perhaps you did not read your original statement carefully. You stated that this passage was an attempt smear the atheist. It was an attempt to smear a new Christian. You claimed that this was false because atheists did not disbelieve on those grounds solely. Well, a) Helen has already shown you that Lewis was not suggesting that the man would disbelieve solely on the basis of the churchgoer's appearance and b) the man was not an atheist!

You should read Helen's post. She is right, there are DAILY statements on this board which suggest that the disbelief in Christianity is at least partially supported ad hominem. The notion "The people who believe this are idiots, therefore it is not true" is all over this board. Ever hang out on the evolution forum?

Take this thread as exhibit A:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001399" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001399</a>


And again, C.S. Lewis VERY CLEARLY STATED through the demon that this was not a SOLE MEANS by which he could stop believing.

Prove it.

Right, because there weren't a lot of Christian abolitionists after all...

In other words, I take intelligent people who disagree with me at their word, and you think any intelligent person who disgrees with you is lying to themselves.

I can tell from this statement that you missed the entire point of the passage. You might try reading the last line of it.

The demons would much rather the average person NEVER THOUGHT OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AT ALL. Can't you see this would be a much safer means of ensuring his damnation? There are SOME scientists who believe in God and could offer potentially convincing arguments for his existence. So why make him think about it at all? Look around you, do you see many people giving the question of the existence of God much thought? And, according to the Christian doctrine, what is going to happen to those people? A demon would much rather keep a person distracted, because if the person gives any serious attention to the question at all they could be forced to at least acknowledge the possibility of God's existence and it's implications. It would NECESSARILY make them have to think about God, and such thoughts, as the passage CLEARLY states, would have GOD HIMSELF at his shoulder in a heartbeat. That's totally consistent with Christian theology and that's the entire point of the passage. This apparently went totally over your head, and yet you feel you are justified in accusing Lewis of being a fraud.

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Really, how?

How does science show that claims for "the Great Beyond" are contradictory or incoherent? Through the use of reasoning and evidence. Are you asking for the long answer here?

Uh-huh. And can science possibly know that:

1) If there were other worlds, we would have empirical evidence of them in this world.

2) That our known laws would apply in other worlds.

We don't, but until we have evidence that the laws are different elsewhere -- and we don't even have good evidence of the possibility of that, let alone the reality -- then violation of known laws is powerful evidence against something. Like I said before, you can make whatever claims you want, but until you provide evidence, it ain't a fact.

It does no such thing, and you know it. Science cannot answer this question, it can only influence people who are over-committed to the philosophy of atheism to be tempted to make bold, unjustified statements. It is possible for the psychologist to discover that a belief is a function of internal cognitive states, that doesn't mean that WHAT IS BELIEVED IN does not exist. You know, logically, that you cannot support this statement, and it is cognitive dissonance, in my opinion, that makes you continually assert it.

You may dream on if you wish. I've already explained this three times. Simply this:

All evidence indicates that religious feelings are purely internal brain states and do not relate to anything outside the brain. Period. Show me evidence that indicates otherwise.

Logically, we take the most parsimonious explanation as the most likely. You are quite correct that demonstrating that a particular belief is entirely internal does not mean the belief is wrong. However, you now require some other reason to continue to hang onto that belief. And there is none.

All the scientific knowledge in the world could not address whether or not other worlds exist. It's a question that GOOD SCIENTISTS admit is BEYOND THE REALM OF SCIENCE.

Some scientists claim so. Others disagree. And again, until you have credible evidence for them, those other dimensions remain a mildly interesting assertion on your part.

In any case, the existence of other worlds is an empirical question. Science can bear on it in many ways, by explaining the neurological and sociological basis of such beliefs, in such a way that accounts for all the observed features. This has been done. Whether you accept that or not is entirely up to the level of cognitive dissonance you are willing to tolerate.

Finally, your replies have done nothing to evoke any cognitive dissonance on my part. You have alternately yelled at me and insulted me. All of the emoting here has been on your part. If you were a third party observing, where would you assume the cognitive dissonance is taking place?

See, in order to induce cognitive dissonance on my part, you'd have to come up with a powerful argument against my position. And "Science cannot explain..." is a really weak argument. "Science cannot explain..." is not an argument for anything. In order to argue for something, evidence is required. Just bring on the evidence, please.

No, science cannot address the question of the massless invisible rhino orbiting Jupiter, and I am not pretending it can. You, however, are pretending (cognitive dissonance, no doubt) that it can rule out the possibility of the existence of other worlds. It most certainly cannot.

Here you have badly misunderstood. "Ruling out" is the wrong term. Rather, what I have done is shown that the vast preponderance of evidence is that there is no Great Beyond. Instead, all of the evidence is consistent with the idea that this is the only reality and that religious experiences are internal brain states. Contrary to what you think, science can attack the question of other worlds by showing that the belief in such things is the result of neurological and sociological processes. Once that is explained, there is no need to invoke new processes to explain the observed evidence. The processes we already understand do that. In science we go with the most parsimonious explanation that accounts for all the observed facts.

Science rarely "rules out." Instead, it accumulates evidence until the weight points in a certain direction. Where does the evidence point in this case?

Sure, but evidence independant of your own mind is required to show that other worlds don't exist. And you don't have any.

Umm...no. Until you provide evidence that they do, it doesn't exist. You seem to have things backward.

Suppose you claimed that the earth had four moons instead of the three it actually has (two are extremely small, and one was only discovered 15 years ago). Would you say, "Sure, you don't have evidence that earth doesn't have four moons, so that is a strong argument that indeed has four!" Nobody in their right mind would accept such a bizarre argument. The usual response would be "As far as anyone knows, the earth only has three moons. There is no fourth moon."

The situation is exactly the same here. There is no world beyond this until you come up with powerful argument and evidence to suggest there may be one. "There isn't one" is the correct response until you come up with evidence or argument to suggest otherwise.

The bottom line is, you seemed to be asserting that other worlds don't exist because a person's belief in other worlds is a function of their cognitive states (and, again, I suppose your belief that other worlds don't exist is somehow not a result of your cognitive states, right?).

Incorrect. Evidence indicates that religious experiences are internal brain states, specific processes that take place in the brain, that can be induced by electrical stimulation, or deprivation, or drugs.

Firstly, I seriously doubt that's actually been proven, but I welcome you to link me to any information to the contrary.

Links?

Here's one about OBEs <a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/obe.html" target="_blank">OBE's</a>

Here's one about electrical stimulation and religious experiences: <a href="http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~tfrisen/science/Buckman.htm" target="_blank">look here</a>. Note that Buckman's position is the same as mine.

Just googlize "electrical stimulation religious experiences" and read the sites.

Further, that, combined with all scientific knowledge up to this point, would be totally insufficient evidence to warrant your conclusion.

What conclusion? That there is no evidence for the Great Beyond?

Great. Can you show me that my beliefs are fantasies, illusions, or constructions of my own mind? Or can you simply assert this?

No, but I can invite you to read on the evolutionary, sociological and neuroscientific bases for religious belief. You may come to your own conclusions.

False analogy. Yes, IF WE COULD GO TO OTHER WORLDS, we could see if they existed or not. But since we can't,

I see. Science can't know anything about other worlds, but you, Luluv the Poster, know for sure that one of the properties of these mysterious other worlds is that we can't go there. You're awfully sure for a man who is busy claiming that we can't be sure.

.... that hardly clarifies whether science has ruled out their existence or not. If later science proves that there are no other worlds (again, I don't see how it could), then and only then could we conclude that science has proven other worlds cannot exist. My mental state is irrelavent, it is circumstantial evidence at best.

Yes, but I was responding to your analogy, not making my own. Mental states are evidence until their basis can be shown to be invalid. Neuroscientific evidence shows that religious beliefs are internal brain states, and that the sensation of interacting with something outside oneself is entirely biochemical and internal. In other words, it has removed the validity of your experience as evidence....that is what I am saying.

It is true that, in order for VORKOSIGAN to BELIEVE in something, evidence must be presented to VORKOSIGAN, but it is not true that in order for SOMETHING TO EXIST, evidence must be presented to Vorkosigan.

Again, you make the same silly argument. You seem to think that if there is no evidence for something, that somehow qualifies as an argument in its favor. I freely admit the potentiality of other worlds we do not know about. However, the possibility or actuality of such things is nowhere suggested by any evidence now in the possession of humans anywhere.

Vork: Both are exactly as I say, sympathetically written, pompous, and badly-argued, full of philosophical errors so simple and so blatant that Lewis is either stupid, engaged in complex double-think, or deliberately lying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luv:And yet you've managed to avoid mentioning a single one.

Yes, because I don't want to repeat the two threads we did on those two books again. What for" How many times do we have to trash those books before it dawns that they are badly written?

If I went mouting off about Bertrand Russell or some other major atheist thinker after barely finishing one of his books, you'd be all over me, and rightly so.

Only if you were wrong.....

Vork, perhaps you did not read your original statement carefully. You stated that this passage was an attempt smear the atheist. It was an attempt to smear a new Christian.

Luv, the passage in question states that the man can be led from Christianity by reflecting on the class differences among members of his Church. Who does this attack -- believers or atheists? Think about it.

You claimed that this was false because atheists did not disbelieve on those grounds solely. Well, a) Helen has already shown you that Lewis was not suggesting that the man would disbelieve solely on the basis of the churchgoer's appearance and b) the man was not an atheist!

...and neither point is relevant. Imagine that. &lt;sigh&gt;

You should read Helen's post. She is right, there are DAILY statements on this board which suggest that the disbelief in Christianity is at least partially supported ad hominem. The notion "The people who believe this are idiots, therefore it is not true" is all over this board. Ever hang out on the evolution forum?

Used to moderate the E/C forum. And again, please give me some examples of people who gave up their religion on these grounds (class contempt). We certainly slam believers in Creationism for being idiotic. But that does not mean that we gave up our religion because certain people are idiotic. We gave up beliefs because they are idiotic, not because people are idiotic. Big difference between people and beliefs, you know.

Vork: The fundamental problem is that choosing atheism is an inherently rational act, while choosing religion is an inherently irrational one
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prove it.

Is religious faith rational? Nobody thinks so, even religious people. If it were rational, it wouldn't be faith, after all.

Right, because there weren't a lot of Christian abolitionists after all...

Who claimed this? The issue is, "What arguments are effective against religious belief?" Obviously the support of almost all the mainstream Christian Churches for slavery is a powerful argument against the morality of Christianity. This is true regardless of the behavior of decent people on both sides of the religous question. My point was that Lewis generally ignores the most devastating arguments against Christianity.

In other words, I take intelligent people who disagree with me at their word, and you think any intelligent person who disgrees with you is lying to themselves.

Why must you constantly mischaracterize what I say like this? The fact is that he was smart enough to have known were bad, like the Trilemma, for example. Therefore he was either incompetent, lying or ignorant. I don't believe in (1) or (3), so I am forced to reach for (2).

Yes, I believe Lewis was lying to himself. He published a book about his crisis of faith under a psuedonym. What do you suppose that indicates?

The demons would much rather the average person NEVER THOUGHT OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AT ALL. Can't you see this would be a much safer means of ensuring his damnation? There are SOME scientists who believe in God and could offer potentially convincing arguments for his existence. So why make him think about it at all? Look around you, do you see many people giving the question of the existence of God much thought? And, according to the Christian doctrine, what is going to happen to those people? A demon would much rather keep a person distracted, because if the person gives any serious attention to the question at all they could be forced to at least acknowledge the possibility of God's existence and it's implications. It would NECESSARILY make them have to think about God, and such thoughts, as the passage CLEARLY states, would have GOD HIMSELF at his shoulder in a heartbeat. That's totally consistent with Christian theology and that's the entire point of the passage. This apparently went totally over your head, and yet you feel you are justified in accusing Lewis of being a fraud.

Yes, it is totally consistent with Christian theology, but that does not make it a good argument. It appears that what I've said has gone entirely over your head. The issue isn't whether it is good theology. The issue is whether it is a good approach to the problem.

The fact is that thinking about god in no way requires one to acknowledge the possibility and consequences of its existence, anymore than thinking about Frodo obligates one to consider the consequences of his existence (or means that Frodo rushes to my shoulder to comfort me). Thinking about fictions does not entail imagining that they might be real. This is where Lewis' argument fails. Most people, despite the easygoing contempt for your fellow man displayed in the comment about what 'most people think,' do think about god(s) from time to time. One can hardly avoid being reminded of it in western society, where people celebrate Christmas and Easter, and every Sunday is off, or here in Taiwan, where almost every business has an altar to the God of Money in it.

Thus, the best outcome for the demons is not a person who does not think about god, since that would mean that such a mind not be prepared for, say, a Fundie's knock at the door and a sudden conversion, but an informed and reasoning atheist. Of all persons those are the hardest to convert, as any missionary will tell you. As you already know. But Lewis cannot say that, because that would alert his audience to the fact that there are powerful reasons not to accept these ideas. Instead, he has to settle for second best, going for class contempt instead of science and reason, and mere 'unchurchedness" instead of full-blown atheism.

Vorkosigan

lpetrich

A more likely possibility is that their "atheism" had been indifference to religion or something like that, which the author of the <a href="http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/" target="_blank">Biblical Errancy newsletter</a> once suggested is the typical case.

luvluv

Yes. You've already stated the short one.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What known laws would other universes violate? There are cosmologists whose theories are premised on the notion that other laws obtain in other universes (evolutionary cosmology, I think it's called) Smolin argued for it in his book on LQG, and I've heard it argued in other places. If I'm not mistaken, this assumption is also part of some aspects of infaltionary cosmology (Linde I believe?). So it seems apparent that ACTUAL SCIENTISTS do not believe that the violation of known laws constitutes positive evidence against the existence of other worlds or the viability of the concept. This being the case, I wonder how you can make the claim that "science" says anything. They seem divided on the issue.

Vork, AGAIN, I am NOT stating a claim. I am challenging YOUR CLAIM that science has evidence against the existence of other worlds. The fact that we lack evidence FOR their existence is not evidence AGAINST their existence. It simply means we don't have any emprical information one way or the other. THAT is the only argument I have been attempting to make... that science cannot rule out the possibility of the existence of other worlds.

That's actually wrong, but I won't argue this out completely. I have had religious internal feelings VERIFIED by external events. I met the woman I intend to marry by responding to an internal feeling NOT TO LEAVE an uncomfortable situation. I was in an office waiting for a friend who I was told would not be coming for over an hour. I had an internal religious feeling that told me, in a deeply felt impression, not to leave. I was eventually asked to move to a different section of the office to wait for my friend and I ended up meeting and dating a very special girl. This was the one and only time I ever intended to go to this office and if I had not waited, I would never have met her.

This alone, obviously, proves nothing, but it proves that internal mental states, even if they can be counterfeited by electricity and chemicals, are not verifiable. They are if the correspond to actual events outside the mind. I have had events like the one described above occur to me almost daily since my conversion, and that IS evidence that these internal states correspond to something external.

Morality, after all, is nothing but an internal brain state, as is every other emotion, and as is the structure of logic. But do these things correspond to externalities? Of course! I've heard you argue many times that our brains are shaped by our environment. Our brains can process predictability because our world is, in some respects, predictable. So could it be that our brains are shaped to interact with the divine BECAUSE THE DIVINE EXISTS? What would be wrong with the Creator or evolution outfitting us with an electrical or chemical system of communication with God. Isn't that how we communicate with each other! The fact that some "religious feelings" could be faked is not evidence that it does not, in it's proper functioning, correspond to something real. Our logic structures are capable of interpreting the predictable because our universe is, to a certain extent, predictable. So why could it not be that we have an electrical-chemical response system to the divine because there actually is a divine? Why would this systems electical or chemical make-up constitute evidence that what it responds to is not real? Is logic and predictibility real?

Again, I'm not asking you to believe that other worlds exist, only trying to get you to produce something that would support your statement that science has shown that they don't.

Again, I never asked you to believe in the existence of other worlds. I simply demanded proof that, as you suggested, science has evidence against their existence.

Science cannot explain away the existence of other worlds would not be a powerful argument against my position if my position, in this discussion, was that other worlds exist. My contention in this discussion, however, was not "other worlds exist" but "science cannot prove other worlds exist", and therefore the statement "Science cannot explain away the existence of other worlds" , if it is one we agree on, is a pretty powerful argument against your assertion that it has.

I really hope that on your next post you can concede the fact that I never, once, tried to convince you that other worlds actually exist, only to dispute your claim that science has proven that they cannot exist, or that science has evidence that they do not exist.

Which would be cute, were it not for the fact that most scientists agree that other worlds WOULD BE INHERENTLY UNOBSERVABLE. This is why science cannot rule out the possibility of their existence! When a question deals with issues or possibilities that cannot be observed, it is a non-scientific question. Regardless of the general dispostion around here, there are questions which just aren't scientific and which science simply can't answer, and good scientists will be the first ones to admit that. Those who see science as a tool have no problem with this, only those who look to science as a god which can answer all questions and end all suffering have a problem with the heresy of suggesting that a problem could be outside the province of the scientific method.

And since when does science say that internal brain states cannot correspond to reality? My dear Vorkosigian, YOU, your self-perception and your identity, is nothing but an elaborate internal brain state. Do you exist? I have no doubt that the rational group of molecules that we call Vorkosigian exists, but do your attributes? Your likes, dislikes, loves, memories, compulsions, passions, everything that distinguishes you as a person... do these exist? What about your thoughts? Because these are all brain states.

No, they can't. Your sense of morality and your emotions are also the result of neurological and sociological processes. Can science therefore say that love does not exist? Or that morals don't exist?

Fear, for instance, is a purely chemical emotion produced in our brains by the release of certain chemicals. Can fear, then, be said to not correspond to anything external? It is true that, without those chemicals, that we would not posses the emotion of fear, but that does not mean that fear, despite being a chemical reaction, does not correspond to an external reality? Similarly, yes if one had no neurons or if one were brain dead then one could not express piety or have religious feelings, but that does not mean that these feelings do not respond to external realities EVEN IF these realities by their very nature are unobservable by science.

Which, again, would absolutely end this argument were it not for the fact that other worlds, if they exist, would be inherently beyond the scope of our observation.

That's just wrong. Things exist that we do not have evidence for. This is what I was getting at in my first post. Did space curve before we had evidence that it curved? Did radiation exist before Madame Curie? It is absolutely not required for the existence of something that you (or any entity) have evidence of it's existence. I dare say there are things right now that we do not know anything about that do, despite this drawback, exist.

And no one in their right mind has MADE this argument. This is a strawman. I have not asked you to believe in the existence of other worlds. I have asked you to defend your claim that science has ruled out the possibility of their existence.

Until you've read the testimony of thousands of religious people throughout the ages who report that these "internal brain states" often are confirmend externally, you are only reading half the story. Everything about us as rational, emotional people is an eletrical or chemical brain state, that does not mean that these states do not correspond to external reality. Your studies only address half the question if they do not look into whether or not these states, when they occur outside the laboratory, are often backed up with external confirmation.

I was under the impression that this is what science (specifically astronomy and cosmology) says. At any rate, we cannot PRESENTLY go to other worlds, and therefore your analogy is still false for the assertion you are PRESENTLY presenting. The entire point of this debate is that other worlds are unobservable.

Not until it addresses whether these internal states correspond to the external.

For what I hope will be the last time, I am not asserting that other worlds exist, and I have not done so. I am questioning your assertion that science has ruled out the possibility of the existence of other worlds. If you are withdrawing that statement, as it seems you are here, then I'm done.

Not so fast Vork. I was here refering to the Screwtape Letters, which we have not discussed in depth ONCE.

Vork there is no NEED to think about it because Lewis EXPLICITLY MENTIONED that the reason why the new convert is so easy to fool is because of HIS SOCIETY. It is a SOCIAL CRITIQUE. You are reading your own personal biases against Lewis and apologists into the Screwtape Letters.

Lewis was not suggesting that anyone would give up their religion solely on those grounds, but that such an approach is a means of begining to undermine their faith.

I really think you just have been in academia too long if you don't think that ad hominem beliefs are not held by unsophisticated atheists. Sir, I have met atheists who did not finish high school. Here in the South, it is very common to meet people (particularly Northern transplants) who will not give relgion serious consideration because of the apparent ignorance and indigence of the adherents of religion. Yes, it is stupid, BUT PEOPLE DO STUPID THINGS AND BELIEVE THINGS FOR STUPID REASONS. We both know that, so why are you pretending to know that there is no such thing as an atheist who disbelieves because he or she believes the people who do believe are somehow superstitious or ignorant?

If you mean by irrational that it cannot be confirmed with 100 percent certainty either by empircal or logical inquiry, then I would agree, but I would also suggest that atheism on those grounds is equally irrational. If you mean by irrational that there is no evidence whatsoever for the veracity of religion, then I would disagree.

No, it is a weak argument against the morality of CERTAIN CHRISTIANS, and against the level of their commitment to their faith. If some Christians support slavery, and others don't, then how could you construe that as evidence against the morality of "Christianity". It could be evidence against the monolithic nature of Christianity, but not against it's morality. Do Christians in other countries count? Because Christianity helped stop slavery in Europe without much dispute. That's a very simplistic statement you are making.

The book I was discussing here, was a Grief Observed, which a) does not contain the Trilema and b) you admit to having not read. I was challenging your ability to declare that all thoughts contained within such a novel correspond to cognitive dissonance when you 1) are probably not qualified to diagnose this and 2) have not read the book in question.

Well, I've actually READ THE BOOK (a curious habit of mine) and so I know that it was not, entirely, a crisis of faith. The book does not seriously question the existence or the goodness of God, it just chronicles Lewis's anger towards God, a very understandable reaction. Again, the statements of yours and all those who try to conduct arm chair psychology against the validity of Lewis's beliefs have obviously not read A SINGLE SHRED of the first person accounts of the people who knew him. They described him as the most deeply and irretreivably converted man they had ever met. It's understandable to me that Lewis would feel guilty about some of the things he said in the book, and that in the interests of social responsibility and an awareness of his position as a high profile believer, that he would want to avoid offending other believers for as long as he could. It is not at all necessary, nor likely (if you read the book) that he was lying because he printed something in an assumed name. One generally writes in an assumed name to tell the truth, and the book tells the truth about Lewis's doubts and the recovery of his faith.

You are neglecting GOD'S ROLE AS A FREE AGENT in the scenario Lewis is describing. In such a situation they would seriously consider God's existence because God would be interacting with their thoughts to bring this about. If this is a given, as the demons in the passage admit it to being, then the only logical course is to keep the man from thinking about God.


I can't believe you aren't reconginzing the paradox of your statement. The devils would only have anything to say IF THERE WAS A GOD. Therefore, all the devils need to do is be consistent with Christian theology. If Christian theology isn't true there is no problem, there are no devils. So if it is true that thinking seriously about God (as the atheist in the passage was doing, he was on the verge of considering conversion) would bring a reaction FROM GOD, then the devils in such a situation would be smartest to keep people from thinking about God alltogether. You've heard that saying, "The best trick the devil has ever pulled is convincing everyone that he doesn't exist"
? (It was in the Usual Suspects, I believe)

So IF CHRISTIANS ARE RIGHT, and thinking SERIOUSLY about God brings about God's interaction, then the devils would be wisest to keep people from thinking about God at all. But if CHRISTIANS ARE WRONG then there is no God and no devils. About the only place you could logically dispute Lewis is to suggest that thinking about God doesn't necessarily demand that he respond, but you could only do so on theological grounds. Christians believe that this is the case, and it is from Christian beliefs that the devils in the Screwtape letter emerge, and therefore it is totally logically consistent for the devils to follow the tact they had chosen. I guess you could deny that God, if He existed and was loving and desired a relationship with each individual person above all else (as Christians believe) would not respond to a person giving His existence serious consideration. I'd actually like to hear your argument as to why this should not be the case.

But the premise of the passage is, in becoming an informed and reasoning atheist, you would have to confront not only serious intellectual arguments supporting the other side, BUT THE ACTUAL PRESENCE AND ACTIVITY OF GOD. Thus, it would be far safer to keep you from thinking about God at all.

Again, this shows partially that you are simply uninformed, and partially that you misunderstand the purpose of the book. It is not an apologetic, it is an attempt to describe certain tendencies that lead a man towards a good relationship with God and towards faith. Lewis attempts to respond to deeper objections to the faith head-on in other books like Miracles, The Problem of Pain, God in the Dock, and others. (And even in these books he fully admits to being a layman and suggest further study). But in the Screwtape Letters, he is addressing a believing audience and writing what is known as a devotional. It is a book for people to read to think about God and His actions in our world, and to think about how we respond to adversity and challenge. It is, at most, a theological book. It's purpose is not to address the strong arguments against faith, so Lewis is not being dishonest by not including them ESPECIALLY when he does deal with these arguments in other works. Really, all this reveals is how little research has gone into your opinions of this man. That's not intended as an insult but as a factual statement.

Vorkosigan

Well, it looks like we've pretty much reached the point where we're repeating comments about Lewis, so we should probably drop it. I'm going to find The World's Last Night and report back to you here. Thanks for the very long responses. I think you've had the better of this exchange.

Vorkosigan